[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10889-10898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1261, WORKFORCE REINVESTMENT AND 
                      ADULT EDUCATION ACT OF 2003

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 221 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 221

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1261) to enhance the workforce investment 
     system of the Nation by strengthening one-stop career 
     centers, providing for more effective governance 
     arrangements, promoting access to a more comprehensive array 
     of employment, training, and related services, establishing a 
     targeted approach to serving youth, and improving performance 
     accountability, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 221 is a structured but fair rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 1261, the Workforce 
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This rule provides for 1 
hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
general debate, it will be in order to consider only the amendments 
printed in the report accompanying this resolution, by the Member 
designated and debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
  In total, this rule makes eight amendments in order, three offered by 
Republican Members and five offered by Democrat Members.
  Finally, the rule permits the minority a motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.

[[Page 10890]]



                              {time}  1030

  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the report.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest experiences for a Member of Congress 
is when we can acknowledge that a particular policy or plan that we 
have passed has been successful. Today is one of those times as we 
reauthorize the landmark 1998 Workforce Investment Act. In 1998, 
Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act to reform the Nation's job 
training system. At that time it was fragmented, duplicative and 
ineffective to both job seekers and employers. The path from 
unemployment to a job was long and winding and treacherous and often 
led to a dead end. There were many areas for improvement and we found 
them. What followed was a plan that consolidated and integrated 
employment and training services at the local level in a more unified 
work force development system. Today we can clearly see the positive 
results.
  For example, if we take a snapshot view of the program from 2000 to 
2001 we see 1.1 million individuals receiving intensive training from 
programs and services offered and millions more accessing self-service 
job listings and placement assistance through the one-stop centers and 
82 percent of unemployed workers finding a job, up from 76 percent the 
previous year, increased employment rates for low-income adults rising 
from 69 percent to 76 percent, and higher diploma attainment rate for 
youth jumping from 35 percent to 54 percent. What a wonderful 
accomplishment. Few can dispute this evidence of success. Few can 
discount the millions of lives that have been changed with greater 
independence and greater self-worth.
  So today we will build upon these achievements and pass the Workforce 
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.
  First, in this plan Congress goes even further in streamlining 
bureaucracy. Finding a new or better job is no small task, and workers 
will welcome few barriers allowing them to take full advantage of the 
employment assistance.
  Second, the package strengthens essential components such as adult 
education with vital reading and math skills. An adult education system 
should focus on improving results for those most in need of help, those 
who have already been left behind who have not attained the core skills 
that they need. By improving adults' basic reading and math skills and 
providing limited English proficiency lessons, this plan goes even 
further in equipping workers with tools and training necessary to enter 
the 21st century workforce.
  This bill also enhances the landmark flexibility and local 
involvement that Congress provided to States and communities in the 
1998 law. More duplicative programs and services have been identified 
and consolidated, saving money and precious resources. State and local 
officials receive even more flexibility to target Federal resources 
toward the unique needs of their own communities.
  Finally, reauthorizing this plan helps strengthen America's economy 
by helping more workers find better jobs. The One-Stop Career Center 
system that provides job training and career information gives workers 
a necessary bridge to rejoin the workforce or retraining for better 
jobs. Such services are immeasurable and an investment into America's 
workforce.
  Tomorrow this body will consider a jobs and growth package aimed at 
stimulating businesses and better jobs. Tomorrow we consider how to 
create new jobs. But today we consider how to strengthen the worker, 
how to equip the worker with the knowledge and the skills needed to 
succeed in those new jobs. An unlimited supply of jobs would not do 
America's economy any good without a qualified worker for each and 
every one of them. Strengthening America's economy requires both good 
jobs and good workers, and today I ask my colleagues to remember that 
when considering this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the bill, and 
let me say just when we think that the Republican leadership of this 
House could not be any more out of touch with reality they bring this 
bill to the floor today, and today's contribution is the so-called 
Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.
  Let us review some of the basic facts of the failed economic policies 
of this President and of this Congress. Those policies have led to a 6 
percent unemployment rate, the highest in years. There are more 
unemployed people in this country today than at any point since July of 
1993. Of the 8.8 million people who are out of work in America, nearly 
2 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. The average 
length of unemployment is now approximately 20 weeks, the highest since 
1984.
  Mr. Speaker, the economy is ailing and Republican policies are 
failing, and every day the people of America are the ones who are 
suffering. And how does the majority propose to help the unemployed in 
this country? First, by proposing a misguided tax scheme. The President 
and the Republicans claim that their tax bill will create a million 
jobs. No serious economist or no serious person believes that.
  But even taking them at their word, each new job under their plan 
would cost $550,000 in lost revenue, about 17 times the salary of the 
average American worker. Talk about waste, fraud and abuse. On the 
other hand, every dollar we spend on unemployment benefits will boost 
the economy by $1.73. That is what is called growth, not that the 
Republican majority knows anything about that.
  The second part of their plan is to cut job training, disability, and 
veteran employment, and adult learning programs to hurt the very people 
we should be helping.
  The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 we are 
considering here today does nothing to help create jobs or to reduce 
the number of unemployed people in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve much better. Contrary to 
what we will hear from the majority, this bill actually makes it harder 
for the unemployed to get employment and reemployment training.
  The SEIU, in an open letter to every Member of this body, said that 
``The primary task of the workforce development system must be to 
connect unemployed or underemployed workers with family-sustaining jobs 
that provide good wages and benefits and afford economic self-
sufficiency.'' They are right. But if they are a young person who needs 
employment training while looking for their first job, this bill will 
not help them. If they are an adult who needs reemployment training and 
assistance as they look for a new job, this bill is not going to help 
them.
  Specifically, this bill block-grants adult, dislocated worker, and 
employment service funding streams. It allows States to use funds from 
the Disability and Veteran Employment and Adult Learning programs to 
fund expenses at the Workforce Investment Act's centers. The result of 
this provision will be more bureaucracy and less training for the 
disabled and veterans.
  Given all the rhetoric we hear in this place about veterans, this 
provision is unacceptable. We should be doing everything we can to help 
veterans find employment instead of slashing the Disability and Veteran 
Employment and Adult Learning Programs.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates existing protections 
and safeguards against low quality and potentially fraudulent job 
training providers and permits States to allow these providers to 
receive Federal funding. It caps the use of funds for services for low-
income youth, those considered most likely to drop out of school at 30 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, many Democrats offered several good amendments in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday. Unfortunately the majority has decided to 
stifle the debate on these important issues by denying these Members 
the opportunity to offer most of these amendments here on the floor.

[[Page 10891]]

  One of the amendments offered in committee and denied by the majority 
was an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who have lost 
their jobs. Unemployment benefits expire at the end of this month. Too 
many unemployed workers simply cannot find work because the jobs are 
not there. These people desperately need the unemployment benefits 
traditionally supplied by the Federal Government in difficult times. It 
is flat wrong that the majority refuses to allow a vote on the 
extension of these important benefits. But if that were not bad enough, 
this bill also attacks the Constitution by repealing civil rights 
protections that are written in the current law.
  Twenty-one years ago, then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored legislation 
that provided civil rights protections against employment 
discrimination based on religion in programs that receive Federal 
funding. President Reagan signed that bill into law. It is not every 
day that a Democrat like me praises the good work of Dan Quayle, but 
the nondiscrimination provision he offered is good policy that has 
served us well.
  And this provision received strong bipartisan support when the 
Workforce Reinvestment Act was reauthorized in 1998. But the Workforce 
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 before us today shreds 
these protections by allowing religious organizations to receive 
Federal funding under the bill for job training activities and social 
services and then to discriminate in hiring based on religion. In other 
words, this bill would allow a religious organization that 
discriminates based on religion, like Bob Jones University, to get 
taxpayer money for Federal job training programs.
  This provision is unconstitutional, unacceptable and offensive. An 
amendment to remove this provision was offered in the Committee on 
Rules and, like other substantive amendments, was not made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. Yesterday the Committee on Rules 
majority got into a debate over whose responsibility it is to deal with 
the unemployment benefits issue. Some said the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, others said the Committee on Ways and Means. But I 
would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they not 
go home to their districts? Do they not listen to their constituents? 
Do they not know that their constituents care more about jobs and a 
strong economy than about jurisdictional cat fights? This is outrageous 
and they know it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule and it is a bad bill, and I urge 
my colleague to think of the unemployed in their districts and ask 
themselves does this bill help my constituents? The honest answer is 
no. I urge this House to defeat the rule and vote against the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question of 
the rule on this Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 
2003. This legislation before us today and the consideration tomorrow 
of the Republicans' irresponsible tax bill tell the American people 
everything they ever wanted to know about where the majority's 
priorities lie. And lest anyone be mistaken, their priorities do not 
lie with the workers and families who are suffering through the anxiety 
and stress of joblessness, with more than 10 million American workers 
now unemployed, with the loss of 2.7 million private sector jobs since 
President Bush was inaugurated, and 500,000 in the last 3 months; and 
with the unemployment rate at 6 percent, its highest level since 1994, 
the majority would undercut local reemployment efforts and eliminate 
services for job-seeking veterans, dislocated workers, and the 
disabled.
  This Act was authorized 4 years ago after a lengthy bipartisan 
process. But today, today the majority turns it into a partisan vise 
that will squeeze America's jobless. It gives governors unlimited 
authority to divert funds from adult education, disability, and 
veterans' services. And we will, like Pontius Pilate, wring our hands 
and say it was not our responsibility, it was the governors' 
responsibility. And it fails to restore the $440 million in cuts 
imposed on job-training programs or protect against 265 million more in 
proposed cuts for fiscal 2004.
  Just imagine, just imagine, under Republican stewardship our economy 
has shed millions of jobs and at the same time the GOP is undermining 
job training programs. Republicans may call that compassion; Democrats 
call it indifference. Adding insult to injury, the big tent GOP seeks 
to change the original law to permit organizations that received Work 
Investment Act funds to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring, 
something that Dan Quayle said they should not do.
  I commend my colleagues who fought to restore the current law. Their 
amendment should have been made in order. Was there a lack of 
conviction that the allowing of discrimination in this bill was an 
appropriate policy and they could not hold their Members on their side 
of the aisle for such discrimination?
  Democrats believe this Congress must enact policies that jump-start 
our economy and create jobs, and redoubling our job-training efforts is 
a vital part of that.

                              {time}  1045

  This bill simply gives the cold shoulder to millions of jobless 
Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question, 
to vote against the rule, and to vote against this bad bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 221 is a structured rule that gives the House 
the opportunity to consider eight amendments to the Workforce 
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. The Committee on Rules 
has attempted to be as fair as possible in crafting this rule and has 
made in order five Democrat amendments, two Republican amendments, and 
a manager's amendment. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in 
supporting this rule so we can move on to debate the underlying 
legislation.
  With respect to H.R. 1261, I wanted to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness and 
chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce 
respectively, for all of the time and effort they have invested in 
bringing this very important and well-crafted legislation to the House 
floor today.
  America's economy has been through a great deal in the last few 
years. We experienced the shock of September 11, we have endured a 
recession, and we faced the uncertainty of war. In spite of all this, 
the American economy is growing fast, and growing faster than most of 
the industrialized world. To ensure that our economy meets its full 
potential, we must create the conditions for continued growth and 
prosperity.
  As the economy continues to recover, hundreds of thousands of 
Americans are searching for good, stable jobs. We have an opportunity 
here to assist those Americans in finding employment, and I believe 
that H.R. 1261 is a positive step in the right direction.
  H.R. 1261 amends the 1998 Workforce Investment Act, which authorized 
the Federal Government's primary programs for helping our Nation's 
workers gain the skills they need to succeed in today's rapidly 
changing workforce. The 1998 act has helped unprecedented numbers of 
American workers find employment by finding workforce investment 
services and programs through statewide and local One-Stop Career 
Center systems, but it could help even

[[Page 10892]]

more, and that is exactly what H.R. 1261 is designed to do.
  H.R. 1261 aims to streamline work investment programs in order to 
provide more efficient and results-oriented services. It will provide 
also an opportunity to build on and improve the current system so that 
it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of both 
workers and employers. In addition, it will eliminate duplication, 
improve accountability, increase State flexibility, and strengthen 
adult education programs.
  To the credit of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), and the full committee chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), I believe H.R. 1261, combined with President 
Bush's jobs and growth tax relief initiative, will move us toward our 
goal of creating more job opportunities for our citizens and ensuring 
that out-of-work Americans have the access to the tools and resources 
they need to rejoin the workforce or retrain for better jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), whose important amendment was denied 
yesterday in the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  As a new Member of this House, I was appalled that one of the first 
actions we took in the Committee on Education and the Workforce was to 
adopt a provision that strikes at the heart of religious liberty in 
this country. The underlying bill contains a provision that takes us 
down a very dangerous road in this country, a road of religious bigotry 
and intolerance; and even worse, it uses taxpayers' dollars to promote 
that intolerance.
  What am I talking about? Under current law, if you receive Federal 
funds to run a job training program in this country, you are not 
allowed to discriminate in your hiring based on religion. I think that 
makes sense to all Americans. If you are receiving Federal dollars for 
a program you are running, you should not be able to say to a 
perspective job applicant, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. But 
that is what this does.
  Here is a chart that shows what current law is. This was a law that 
was language originally signed into law by President Reagan. It was 
most recently adopted again by this body in 1988 as part of the last 
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It has a prohibition 
of discrimination language, and it prohibits discrimination in 
employment based on religion, existing law.
  But what this underlying bill does is it takes a big red X mark and 
crosses out ``religion.'' It is a green light in this country to allow 
organizations that receive Federal funds to say no, to give you the 
religion test.
  Imagine if you were to open up your local newspaper and see a help 
wanted ad for a job training program, and it said Christians only need 
apply, Jews only need apply, or Muslims only need apply. In fact, it 
can say Baptists only, or Methodists only. We would be appalled. But 
even worse, we would be appalled if we saw that that ad in that 
newspaper was paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  Imagine as an American citizen responding to an ad for a job with a 
job training program, and you are qualified and you go to the 
interview, and they say, Gee, you know, you are really qualified, in 
fact you provided job training services in the past, but, golly, you 
are just the wrong religion. You are not a Christian, or a Jew, or You 
are not a Muslim.
  Or you could be the right religion, but they are allowed to 
interrogate you. They can ask you questions. How many times did you go 
to church? Or synagogue? What are your charitable contributions? Let's 
talk about your marriage and family life. They are allowed under this 
provision to probe into your personal life to determine whether you 
meet their ``religious test.'' And they can do it all with your 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not the America I know. I do not think that is 
the America most Americans know. It strikes at the heart of our 
constitutional protections for liberty.
  I would just say I think the full House deserves an opportunity to at 
least debate this, so that all 435 members have an opportunity to vote 
``yes'' or ``no'' on whether they want to use taxpayer dollars to 
discriminate.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, what is really disturbing in debates is how 
to counter misinformation when it is repeated on a constant basis on 
the floor of this House.
  The constitutional protection for religious liberty also extends to 
churches and it extends to organizations that reflect faith. That 
applies in the Tax Code. I presume a previous speaker, based on that 
logic, would not want to give a tax deduction to a church or a 
religious organization that discriminates in their hiring practices. 
For example, you would not have a Christian as the head of a synagogue, 
or you would not have a Muslim preaching at a Christian church. The 
charitable deduction is shaped that way; tax deductions are shaped that 
way.
  We have all sorts of court-approved guidelines, for example, in the 
sense of they have ruled in some of the schools you can fund a 
computer, but you cannot fund the software, if you look at it that way. 
In other words, busing programs and other things can even be funded 
directly by the government.
  But what is debated here is indirect funding. That is vouchers. We 
have numerous programs that have passed overwhelmingly in this House 
that have said when there is a choice, when no one is forced into it, 
why should people not be able to choose a job training program, an 
after-school program, a literacy program or other such type of thing 
that would enable them to be better prepared for the workplace?
  If there is a secular choice and if there are multiple choices in job 
training, why can one of those choices not be in an inner-city 
neighborhood, where the churches are often the cultural organizing 
institution? Why can one of those choices not be, like the black 
churches in my district or some of the Hispanic outreach programs run 
through the Catholic Church, or some of the charismatic programs run in 
some of the immigrant Hispanic communities, where they are doing the 
job training, where we can leverage the dollars and have people 
committed as much as possible?
  We know that regardless of who controls this House and the State 
houses, there will never be enough money to meet all the needs of those 
who are trying to find work, who are trying to secure health care, who 
are people with AIDS and so on; and unless we can engage the private 
sector that is faith-based, we will be overwhelmed with these problems.
  This bill is one small step, and we should not practice religious 
bigotry and say everyone can be involved except for people of faith 
unless they give up their faith. That is just not right when there is 
choice.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental American principle that 
no citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify 
for a tax-funded job. The vast majority of American citizens agree with 
that principle, and yet this bill would violate that principle, that 
constitutional provision in the first amendment.
  In my 12 years in the House, I have never been more deeply offended 
by the action of the Committee on Rules than with this rule. To deny 
the Members of the House of Representatives to debate the issue of 
religious freedom, to be able to apply for a federally funded job 
without having a religious test given to you by another citizen, to 
deny us even the right to debate that principle, an issue that Madison 
and Jefferson thought important enough to embed into the first 16 words 
of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, I find

[[Page 10893]]

deeply offensive, not only to the Members of this House and this 
institution, but to the American people who agree with the principle 
that you should not be able to discriminate against people based on 
religion in order to obtain a federally funded job.
  I think we lose our moral authority in preaching to the Iraqi 
citizens about religious freedom and democracy if we, this week, this 
day in this House of Representatives, in America, vote to say an 
American citizen can be denied a job for which they are fully 
qualified, a job funded by their taxes, simply because they were 
Christian or they were Muslim or they were Jewish.
  It is not right that an organization associated with Bob Jones 
University could get a $2 million job training program and put out a 
sign that says no Jews or no Catholics need apply here for a federally 
funded job.
  If the Republican leadership of this House wants to defend the 
position that subsidizing religious discrimination in Federal job 
hiring is a good idea, then, okay. I will not defend that idea, but, if 
you do, I respect your right to try to debate that idea. But you have 
denied us even the opportunity to debate whether that idea is right or 
wrong, and that is deeply offensive.
  We should vote against this rule and allow the House to debate this 
important American principle.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee 
on 21st Century Competitiveness and the man who has earned the nickname 
of the Father of One-Stop Career Centers.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1261, the 
Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This important 
bill will reauthorize the Nation's job training programs.
  In 1998, under the Committee on Education and the Workforce's 
leadership, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act to reform the 
Nation's job training system that formerly was fragmented, contained 
overlapping programs, and did not serve either job seekers nor 
employers well. WIA consolidated and integrated employment and training 
services at the local level in a more unified workforce development 
system.
  The act created three funding streams to provide for adult employment 
and training services, dislocated workers' employment and training 
services, and youth development services. These services are directed 
by the local business-led workforce investment boards.
  One of the hallmarks of the new system is that, in order to encourage 
the development of comprehensive systems that improve services to both 
employers and job seekers, local services are provided through a one-
stop delivery system. At the one-stop centers, the system ranges from 
core services such as job surge and placement assistance, access to job 
listings, and an initial assessment of skills and needs, intensive 
services, such as comprehensive assessments and case management, and, 
if needed, occupational skills training.
  In addition, to further promote a seamless system of services for job 
seekers and employers, numerous other Federal programs also must make 
their services available through the one-stop system.
  The WIA system contains the Federal Government's primary programs for 
investment in our Nation's workforce preparation.

                              {time}  1100

  Even though the system is still maturing since its full 
implementation in July of 2000, States and local areas have created 
comprehensive services and effective one-stop delivery systems.
  The system is serving the needs of unemployed workers seeking new 
jobs in this time of economic recovery. In addition, the training 
services provided through WIA are invaluable in helping employers find 
the workers they need in areas of the country facing skill shortages.
  Nonetheless, there have been challenges with the system. For example, 
we have heard of the need to create to increase the financial 
contribution of the mandatory partners in the One-Stop Career Centers 
while, at the same time, increasing the service integration among the 
partner programs. This includes serving through the one-stop system 
special populations that have unique needs.
  We have heard that we need to simplify the local and State governance 
processes and to strengthen the private sector's role. In addition, we 
have heard about the need to increase training opportunities and 
improve performance accountability.
  Solutions to these challenges have been included in H.R. 1261.
  They will enhance the system so that it will continue to meet the 
training and employment needs of the information-based, highly-schooled 
21st century workforce.
  As many Members have talked about already, the Nation's economic 
recovery has been slow at best. Between March and April, job cuts 
jumped 71 percent. U.S. employers wiped out over 146,000 jobs last 
month, compared with a little more than 85,000 in March.
  My home State of California experienced the biggest loss, with a loss 
of 32,891 jobs.
  This Congress cannot sit idly by while more and more Americans are 
added to the unemployment rolls. We must act now and pass legislation 
that will help Americans search for good and stable jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and allow us to 
move forward in bringing H.R. 1261 to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side 
has?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 16 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, because of our sorry history of 
bigotry in this Nation, for decades it has been illegal to discriminate 
in employment and make decisions, job decisions based on race or 
religion. The only exception is churches and religious organizations 
can discriminate with their own money, but not with Federal money.
  So let us be clear. If this rule passes, we will vaporize civil 
rights protections that have been in effect for decades. It is not 
going to make it easier for Federal organizations to get contracts; 
they still need to apply, compete, and are subject to audit. But any 
program that can get funded under this bill can get funded anyway; just 
do not discriminate in employment. And under those rules, Catholic 
organizations, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist organizations get hundreds of 
millions of dollars today. And, Mr. Speaker, if we allow religious 
discrimination, we will be allowing racial discrimination, because many 
organizations are 100 percent African American or 100 percent white.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, employment discrimination is ugly. You can put 
lipstick on a pig, but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. And 
you cannot dress up discrimination with poll-tested semantics and 
euphemisms and pass it off as anything other than ugly discrimination.
  Let us defeat this rule and allow an amendment to maintain basic 
traditional civil rights protections.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle who are rejecting this legislation 
because of its embracing of religious bigotry. As was pointed out, the 
language that is in the current law was authored by Dan Quayle, it was 
signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I guess that was when the Republican 
Party was a more tolerant party.
  But this Republican Party today, for the first time, will repeal a 
major civil rights piece of legislation that outlaws

[[Page 10894]]

discrimination based upon religion. To do so is to embrace the ugly, 
ugly form of religious bigotry. There is no other explanation for that. 
The people will be rejected in the pursuit of their employment, and it 
comes in a bill that is designed to get people more employment. They 
can be qualified for the job, they can be ready to go to work, they can 
provide value-added to their employer, and they can be rejected because 
of their religion and for no other reason. That is bigotry. That is 
what the Republican Party is embracing here.
  Yes, today religions can reject this with their private money and 
their private donations and collections. They can do that. But if they 
take Federal money, they cannot do it.
  This is not about whether or not religious organizations participate 
in work employment programs, work training programs. One of the most 
effective programs in my district is run by North Richmond Missionary 
Baptist Church. It came out of welfare reform. It has done a tremendous 
job of getting people trained and into employment. But they do not 
discriminate against people, because the law does not allow that. But 
hundreds of thousands of dollars are run through that program to try to 
help people be employed. But this law will say for the first time that 
a religious organization with Federal money, with a position paid by 
the Federal Government, can discriminate against individuals because of 
their religion.
  My colleagues are right. We should reject this. And it is an insult, 
and it goes to the level of the corruption of the democratic 
institution of the House of Representatives that we would not be 
allowed to have an amendment where we could debate and vote on this 
measure. This is fundamental to the freedoms of this country, it is 
fundamental to the right of free speech in this institution, it is 
fundamental to the democracy of the people's House. But this process 
has been so corrupted in the Committee on Rules, so corrupted by the 
Republican leadership that we will not be allowed a vote on the matter 
of whether or not people should be allowed to discriminate with Federal 
dollars, whether organizations should be able to engage in religious 
bigotry. Members will not be able to have an up or down vote. You talk 
about a corrupt process.
  We spilled blood to bring democracy and freedom in Iraq and we see it 
being closed down in the House of Representatives. We see the 
underlying basic tenets of the democratic foundation of this House, the 
right to debate, the right to vote, the right to express our 
differences being corrupted by the Republican leadership and the 
Republican Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the reauthorization of the 
Workforce Reinvestment Act and we will get into a broader debate about 
that once we pass this very fair rule that we have before us. But as we 
can see, the debate is coming down over an issue of whether faith-based 
organizations can maintain, maintain their Title VII religious 
exemption.
  When we wrote the civil rights laws in this Congress back in the 
1960s, we made it clear that religious organizations could, in fact, 
discriminate in hiring for their church and church-related services, 
and the only thing that we do in this bill is to allow those 
organizations to continue to be faith-based organizations. They can 
provide services in terms of providing job training or retraining, and 
they can maintain, they can maintain their Title VII exemption.
  Now, we are hearing all of this noise about this is the first time 
and this is such an abridgement. Let me just point out for my 
colleagues that there are a number of programs that allow organizations 
to accept Federal dollars and to maintain their religious identity. 
They are the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers, Title V of the abstinence education grants, 
Older Americans Act, the job opportunities for low-income individuals, 
abandoned infants grants, child abuse and neglect discretionary grants, 
runaway and homeless youth basic center programs, religious 
organizations can take Federal money and keep their Title VII 
exemptions which allow them to hire whom they want to hire within their 
organizations.
  Now, if this is not enough, how about the four bills that President 
Bill Clinton signed into law that allow these same organizations to 
take Federal dollars and continue to maintain their Title VII 
exemption. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Act, the Community Services Block Grant Act, the 
Personal Responsibility of Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, and 
the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act all allow organizations to take 
Federal money and to maintain their Title VII exemption.
  Now, this is a debate that has been going on in this Congress over 
the last several years since President Bush made the case that faith-
based organizations, which are integral in many of our inner city 
communities, that we ought to allow these organizations to provide 
services. And the big debate that we have here is that people want to 
say, well, yes, we want them to provide services, but if they take one 
Federal dollar in providing their services, they ought to give up all 
of their civil rights protections. Hogwash. These organizations are 
doing wonderful things in many communities in America and we should not 
deny them the civil rights protections that were granted to them in 
1965 just because they take a Federal dollar in the pursuit of their 
mission of trying to help people in their own communities.
  So I would ask my colleagues and urge my colleagues to support the 
rule today and support this bill and to support allowing faith-based 
organizations to do the job they are doing in many of our communities.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's right to support 
this bill as written. In my opinion, it would discriminate against 
American citizens in job-hiring simply based on their religious faith. 
I think that is wrong.
  But what I think is doubly wrong is that the Republican leadership in 
the House denied us the right to even have this honest debate on which 
the gentleman from Ohio and I would agree is a fundamentally important 
issue.
  I would like to ask the gentleman, did he support shutting down our 
right to debate this issue?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Congress in 1965 
when they wrote the civil rights laws decided to allow these 
organizations to maintain their right to hire whom they please. All we 
are trying to do with this bill today is to allow that to continue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for this 
misguided reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, a bill that 
fails to create job opportunities or extend unemployment benefits, that 
places the burden of increasing rising unemployment costs, that places 
the coping with that issue on our already financially crippled cities 
and States.
  We are at a time in our history when record numbers of people are 
being laid off, when unemployment benefits are going to expire at the 
end of this month, and what is our response? Curtailing the services 
these workers depend on to find new employment, and doing so when these 
services are already underfunded and straining to meet the increasing 
demand.
  The President's budget called for rescinding $300 million in funding 
in addition to the more than $700 million in cuts to job training 
programs for this year and next. This bill block grants adult 
dislocated worker and employment service funding and helps workers

[[Page 10895]]

find jobs. It cuts summer employment opportunities mentoring and job 
counseling. At a time when men and women in our military are returning 
from combat, it takes money from disability and veteran employment and 
adult learning programs.
  My Republican colleagues would like to tell us that what they are 
doing is providing flexibility to the States to deal with these issues. 
The only flexibility that they provide to these States is what 
populations to jettison, what programs to cut. Our States are not going 
to be capable of handling what the Federal Government and what this 
Bush administration and the Republican House leadership want to foist 
on them.
  I tried to offer a modest amendment to provide assistance to women to 
help move into nontraditional jobs, like carpentry, manufacturing, 
where women comprise less than 25 percent of the workforce. Jobs would 
provide long-term employment, they generate pay between $14 and $35 an 
hour, provide medical care, retirement benefits. To do that, all we 
would have had to do was to give governors the flexibility to direct 
resources to train one-stop employment center employees, help them to 
be trained so that they can help women find these jobs and others find 
these jobs. The Republican majority response? No.
  The simple truth is that this bill abandons workers. It does nothing 
to stop these families from falling through the cracks.
  Turn aside the rule. Let us pass a workforce bill that prepares our 
workforce and gives them the tools for economic security for themselves 
and for their families.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 12 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. It is interesting that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) was asked the question. Maybe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) can answer it. Why not let us bring up the amendment on the 
issue they were discussing?
  And another issue that is not being brought up today that should have 
been is the unemployment situation in this country: 341,000 people lost 
their jobs in April, almost 9 million people out of work.
  This Congress, this House, this majority sits idly by. There is going 
to be the expiration of unemployment benefits, the extended benefits 
the end of this month. And there is over $20 billion in the trust fund 
that could be applied to help these people. Oh, it is said the answer 
is get a job. These unemployed people are looking for a job.
  A recent survey indicated that the average unemployed worker has 
applied for 29 jobs without finding work, and you sit idly by and do 
nothing. It also shows the average unemployed worker over 45 has 
applied for 42 jobs without finding work. Stop sitting and act on this 
issue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Right now Oregon has 7.6 percent unemployment, the highest in the 
Nation. In March of this year food and transportation lost 
manufacturing jobs, 800 jobs. These hardworking men and women are not 
statistics. They are real people with real lives and families, and 
right now they are facing the prospects of not having enough money to 
put food on the table, and they lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own.
  We should not cut the very initiatives that help them retain these 
new jobs that will pay them decent wages and offer them health 
benefits.
  The Dislocated Worker Program of the Workforce Investment Act is 
critical to making sure our States have the resources to keep 
dislocated workers from falling through the cracks, and it is 
imperative that we make sure it remains a separate program because it 
is a training program and its needs are very different from the other 
two programs with which it is being combined.
  I have put forth an amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) that would have addressed this issue and ensure that those who 
are laid off can get the assistance they need to get back into the 
workforce. Yet the Committee on Rules refused to give the Members a 
chance to vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if there is any issue in Congress that 
should rise above partisanship, it should be the principle of religious 
freedom. I hope every Republican and Democrat in the House before 
voting on this rule asks his or herself this question: Is it right that 
an American citizen be denied a federally funded job simply because of 
his or her religious faith?
  If you think that is right, then you should vote for this rule 
because that is what this bill does. It denies American citizens 
publicly funded jobs simply because of their choice of religious faith. 
If you agree with the vast majority of Americans that it is wrong to 
subsidize religious discrimination with federal tax dollars, vote 
``no'' on this rule.
  This is more important than sticking to the sacred altar of 
partisanship. The issue of religious freedom should rise above that 
alter of partisanship. And I hope my Republican colleagues will join 
with Democrats and all of us today to say we are going to stand up for 
religious freedom during the week we are preaching it to the Iraqi 
citizens.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, from listening to the other side, you 
would think that this was something that was run-of-the-mill, that we 
took away these protections every day and have in the past. That is 
just not true.
  This is the first time this Congress will eliminate, delete language 
in our statutes, in our laws that expressly prohibits discrimination in 
these programs based on religion. It is the first time we will remove a 
protection that this body has decided is important and fundamental to 
American principles of operation of church and State.
  As has been stated, this language was first signed into law in 1982 
by Ronald Reagan. It was readopted in 1998 by this House of 
Representatives. And it continues to make sense to every American out 
there that their tax dollars should not go to discriminate when it 
comes to federal programs that are secular in nature.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this full House is not 
given the opportunity to debate this full issue and vote up and down.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on 
the floor. There may be more coming; but if the gentleman is prepared, 
we can close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if people want a dictionary 
illustration of adding insult to injury, the Republicans are providing 
it. They do great injury today to the principle of nondiscrimination, 
and they have added to that the insult of not allowing this House to 
debate it.
  As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) made clear, this is 
the first time we will be removing from the statute books an existing 
antidiscrimination provision, one that says you cannot take Federal 
money and then discriminate against some of the people who paid the 
taxes. If you are a particular organization, you can say, I do not care 
if you are Jewish and pay taxes or Catholic and pay taxes. I do

[[Page 10896]]

not care if you are a Protestant and pay taxes, if you believe in 
abortion. I do not care if you are a Methodist and pay taxes, if you 
agree on evolution. We will exclude you.
  It is appalling to me that they are going to be able to engineer this 
enormous regression in the principle of nondiscrimination without there 
even being a separate vote and debate. It is a tribute to the 
Republican majority, the most submissive body of elected officials 
gathered since the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet that they will 
ratify this decision to roll back a fundamental constitutional 
provision, a fundamental antidiscrimination public policy provision, 
and they will all march down and vote not to allow it to be debated.
  The gentleman from Ohio is right. In 1965 there was an exemption for 
religion organizations, and it was expanded in 1972. A Senator said at 
the time, ``This is to keep the hands of Caesar off of the place of 
God.''
  Now we are talking about the hands of Caesar coming to the religious 
institutions bearing money. And we were saying this, if you as a 
religious institution want to preserve your autonomy, hire only whom 
you want, that is your right. But do not tell Americans of all 
religions to pay taxes and then take those tax dollars and say, but you 
are the wrong religion. You are the right religion but the wrong 
doctrine. And that is what this does.
  It removes it from the statute books. The law now says you cannot 
discriminate based on religion. People have said, well, we need this so 
that religious organizations are not denied funds because of their 
name. Well, in the first place, that is up to the current 
administration. What is George Bush saying? Stop me before I 
discriminate again? If he does not want to discriminate, he has a good 
way to stop discriminating.
  You know the person who went to the doctor and he said, Doctor, it 
hurts when I go like this. The doctor said, Do not go like this.
  Mr. President, do not go like this. Do not discriminate. But do not 
take people's tax dollars and say you can only hire your own.
  The question is two fold: Do we maintain the principle that if you 
take Federal money, if you are a religious organization and to be 
autonomous, that is fine? By the way, for secular purposes, remember by 
definition the religious group can only take Federal money for secular 
purposes. It would be unconstitutional as everyone acknowledges to give 
tax dollars to a religion for religious purposes. So the question is 
can a religious organization take money for secular purposes and 
discriminate? And we are told, well, wait, it is important for them to 
hold together.
  It seems to me the worst thing being said about religious 
organizations are the people who say, you know what, if you want 
Baptist or Jews or Mormons or Catholics to help other people, you 
better not make them associate with nonbelievers. They can only help 
people find jobs, they can only give job training as long as they are 
free from the spiritual pollution of having to teach these jobs 
alongside nonbelievers. That is a condemnation of religion that I hope 
this House will not engage in, compounded by a denial of democracy on 
the floor of the House. To bring forward such an important issue and 
use your submissive majority to prevent debate is contemptible.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in 
support of the underlying legislation, and I would like to add a few 
comments to the topic that seems to have drawn heated debate here.
  I think it is a confusing topic and one that is important that we are 
discussing in this debate right now and one that I believe will come up 
in the debate that goes forward and will no doubt be addressed in the 
motion to recommit which the minority will be allowed to offer.
  The argument here is that the language added to this legislation 
somehow is inconsistent with our civil rights laws and is somehow 
inappropriate. I would like to address and dissect that argument.
  I want to make it clear that our Nation's Constitution and our 
existing civil rights laws make it very clear and have since the day of 
their enactment that religious organizations in their hiring of their 
own staff can, in fact, discriminate based on religion. That is a 
provision that has been scrutinized by the United States Supreme Court 
and upheld by a unanimous United States Supreme Court, so that, if a 
Christian church wants to say that in hiring its minister it chooses to 
hire a Christian minister, it can do that. And the Supreme Court has 
said it may do so.
  In those civil rights laws there is no mention of Federal money. The 
reason we have those laws extended into all sectors of employment is 
not just where there is Federal money involved, but we have our 
discrimination laws extended through commerce. If it is interstate 
commerce, then those civil rights laws apply and they should. But I 
want to make very clear that all nonprofits that have a mission are 
entitled to discriminate based on that mission. That is to say, if a 
particular group that supports abortion and is involved in that 
activity wants to, it can choose not to hire someone who is rabidly 
pro-life. A group that supports the environment and cleaning up the 
environment can choose not to hire on to its staff someone who is 
rabidly against cleaning up the environment. That is a privilege 
enjoyed by all nonprofits under our current law.
  What this bill does, and it is important to understand this, and I 
have a letter here from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of 
America that makes this explanation very clear: what this bill does is 
say a very narrow exception for religious organizations to give them 
the same right that all other non-religious organizations have when 
they are performing services. Currently, we do not say to Planned 
Parenthood, if you take money from the Federal Government you must hire 
someone who is pro-life. But we do say under the current version of 
this law, if you are a faith-based organization and you want to 
provide, for example, job training services, then you must hire all-
comers, people who even disagree with your fundamental beliefs.
  The reality is this is about discrimination, but it is about the 
discrimination that exists in current law. Current laws prohibit 
religious organizations and only religious organizations from saying 
they have the right to choose to hire people who happen to share their 
values. We do not deny that right to Planned Parenthood. We do not deny 
that right to the Sierra Club. We do not deny that right to any other 
group, and we ought not to deny that right to a faith-based 
organization providing its services.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if I had an indefensible 
point I would not yield either, despite all the time they have.
  If, in fact, a religious organization gets money for job training, 
they have a right to refuse to hire someone who does not believe in job 
training. If they have hired because they are going to try and fight 
drug addiction, they do not have to hire someone who is for drug 
addiction.
  If the gentleman thinks I am going to yield him after he refused to 
yield to me when he has all the time and I do not, let him get some 
more time from his side which has the extra time and is sitting on it, 
and I will debate him.
  The fact is that any organization has the right to deny people a job 
if they disagree with the job for which they are being hired. So, no, 
you do not have to hire someone who disagrees with what you are being 
hired for. That is totally not the case. And by the way, this law about 
discrimination does apply across the board.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce) would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg) so the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) can continue this dialogue.

[[Page 10897]]


  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we are reserving our time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that will make in order the Van Hollen amendment 
that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a 
party-line vote.
  This very worthy amendment restores current law, which prohibits the 
use of Federal funds to discriminate in hiring based on religion. It 
will do this by striking the offending language from the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to me that in the 21st century we would 
turn back the clock and allow American taxpayer dollars to be used to 
discriminate against our own citizens based on their religious beliefs.
  This is 2003. I had hoped that we had moved beyond refusing to hire 
someone because they are Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Presbyterian 
or whatever. This bill returns us to the bad old days.
  The Van Hollen amendment would strike this offensive provision, and 
it deserves a vote by this House. This bill is supposed to be about 
helping our unemployed workers, not about giving taxpayer money to 
organizations that discriminate. It is absolutely critical that we put 
aside partisan differences and give Members the chance to delete this 
language.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take up this vital 
amendment. I want to point out that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from 
considering this legislation. However, a ``yes'' vote will deny us the 
opportunity to vote on this terrible language. This is the only 
opportunity that the House will have to strike this provision from the 
bill.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In conclusion, this is a fair rule which allows us to move on to the 
task at hand, strengthening the workforce and equipping the worker with 
the knowledge and skills needed to succeed.
  As I said earlier, an unlimited supply of jobs would not do our 
economy much good without workers to fill those positions. 
Strengthening America's economy requires both good jobs and good 
workers; and today, we are focused on the worker.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would pick this apart 
and stand in the way of progress for America's workers. Nothing new. We 
see it today, we will see it tomorrow, but I ask my colleagues to put 
America's workers first, support this rule, and pass the Workforce 
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
     resolution it shall be in order to consider the further 
     amendment printed in Sec. 3 of this resolution, if offered by 
     Representative Van Hollen of Maryland or a designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent;''
       Sec. 3. Page 91, strike lines 9 through page 92, line 3 
     (and renumber subsequent sections and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly).

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 
221 will be followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on the question of 
adopting the resolution and by two additional 5-minute votes on the 
remaining motions to suspend the rules that were debated yesterday.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 199, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)

[[Page 10898]]


     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Clyburn
     Combest
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Feeney
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hyde
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Schrock


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain to vote.

                              {time}  1152

  Messrs. BOUCHER, McINTYRE, CASE, CROWLEY and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, the 
vote on the question of adopting the resolution will be followed by one 
additional 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
H.R. 874 that was debated yesterday.
  The remaining suspension on House Resolution 213 will be taken later 
today.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 196, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Cox
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Feeney
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hyde
     Miller, Gary
     Ortiz
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Schrock
     Stark


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain to vote.

                              {time}  1200

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________